FlintlockJazz

New Old That was a sneaky change! Didn't even notice they had done it until I found this thread!

Aye, I saw it and was just like "Awesome!!!!"

Prefer no multiclassing with the closest you can get to being a 'fighter-mage' for instance being a skill tree you can take in the mage class that allows you take certain aspects of the fighter class for instance. Actual multiclassing tends to be too easily abused or broken I find. Scale of 1-10 for the attributes. While I liked the attribute spread in the IE games which was pretty much 1-20 that was the absolute maximum, and I agree with Nonek that the attributes shouldn't change much after character creation since I find the set attributes help define who a character is (for instance, Minsc with the strength score of 18 was the strong guy), though minor (and I mean very minor) increases can be okay. I'd also like it that all attributes are important for all classes, sure having one attribute be more important for a class is fine but the others shouldn't become dump stats and overspecialisation like that should result in penalties, like your character not being able to understand that wooden swords are not as good as metal ones if they have the IQ of a lemon.

Oh, another thing I don't want to see: love being portrayed as more important than duty/family/life etc. In so many games and stories now it's always shown that people should give up everything in the name of their loved one because Tru Wuv is so important! For once I'd live to see the opposite: that sometimes you need to put aside your selfish desire to bone someone for the sake of serving your kingdom or something along those lines. That sometimes abandoning your position to rush off and save your love will result in many others die, and that it's NOT OKAY because you sacrificed them for Tru Wuv! That Tru Wuv is not something that should be put on an unassailable pedestle and will solve all your problems.

A real life Shield Wall is when people with shields would stand together in a line with their shields in front to form a wall, over which they could attack with spears or just steamroller forwards and trample their enemies. For cRPGs, I'm proposing some system to mimic this whereby you could get your warriors to actually form a line and block enemies getting past them except with special abilities like a rogue 'tumbling' past.

Yep, with TrashMan as well here. The rogue dishing out more damage than a warrior doesn't make sense to me, plus I don't see why a warrior couldn't learn to be stealthy as well, just as you expect every character to be able to fight I don't see why we shouldn't expect certain other skills to be universally required too. Adventuring into an enemy's castle, planning ambushes, all should be doable by any class I think. I mean, if you think about it an adventuring band is pretty much a special ops squad: they are a small unit that infiltrates enemy strongholds (dungeons, ruins, etc), acquires the target (loot or main bad guy) and then bugs out. We all accept that everyone 'needs' to fight, yet we don't seem to think that other non-fighting skills are essential for all classes in an adventuring role. The only reason why the rogues have been the only ones to 'need' stealth in most games is because of the deliberate set up of your typical dungeon in which battles occur in 'rooms' where only the monsters in the current room respond to you while the monsters in next room just seem to ignore the massive fireball going off right next door (or seem to be unable to grasp the concept of opening doors). With stealth and other movement skills now apparently being classed as non-combat skills perhaps now we'll be able to have all classes be able to invest in it? Personally, I think the Rogue's role in battle should be of one that is able to move about the battlefield more easily than others, not just by in-combat stealth (separate from normal stealth as stealth in normal DnD seems to be some sort of magical invisibility, which would actually work with PE's soul abilities) but by being able to slip through defenses and shield walls and the like in order to reach high priority targets. They'll be lightly armoured in order to achieve this, sacrificing defense in order to gain mobility. In short: proper skirmishers. Think of how the Witch Hunters class in Warhammer Age of Reckoning main goal in large skirmishes was to get to the back line and deal with the healers and other squishes (or was I the only one to play them like that?). EDIT: Didn't see rjshae's post until after I posted mine but yeah, alot like what he says:

Oh god yes. And the way everyone supposedly looks up to her for it, often turning her into a Mary Sue type character. Or into the Morrigan-type when they try to make her dark as well (I know Morrigan was a spellcaster, but it was still the same sort of personality). Just bring me female warriors who kicks arse and doesn't make a big deal out of it and isn't supposed to be some sort of awesomesauce. I mean, I like female warriors, just not when they are waving their boobs in your face demanding respect for being a female warrior.

Sounds alot like how Earth Dawn did it with everyone able to tap into some magic source (can't remember what they called it) to weave effects, like the Swordmaster would cast magic with their sword to enhance their swordfighting etc.

I think you just described the Godsmen from PS:T. Exactly! Just make them more antagonistic towards gods with the belief that they are actually a threat to their faction's goals and are trying to prevent mortals' true destiny and I reckon the Godsmen faction would be good to go as Godslayers!

I like it TrashMan, it's a lot like the standard magic system in GURPS and how it ties into their fatigue system too.

I know I'm quoting myself, but further idea on the shield wall idea: just as with attacks of opportunity gets to be avoided by a Tumble roll in DnD, certain skills or class abilities could give certain characters the chance to 'slip through' a shield wall. If it's specific to certain character classes such as rogues, you then give them the role of being able to actually make surgical strikes on key targets as opposed to just dealing large damage (and makes more sense), as they tumble through threats to try and reach their target. Also, I'd argue that you can counteract monsters going for weak characters without having to resort to aggro systems: spells such as Hold, magical impassable walls like a wall of fire that they have to go around, or knockdown spells. You also will then focus on environmental factors such as where you can bottleneck them, and if possible implement an actual 'shield wall' mechanic whereby warrriors can form a line (not necessarily right next to each other due to the numbers people are limited to, but close enough that they could attack anything going between them perhaps) that prevents monsters from passing through them (which would make having multiple warriors more desirable than usual too), that could be activated with a click resulting in the warriors automatically forming a line and moving as one character to make it easier to form and control. Hey, I love me my shield walls! :D

I prefer the FoW system to the 'lock the camera to the characters' that DAO used when you were in isometric view (you basically had to have one character on the screen at any time, you couldn't keep scrolling if it meant you would no longer have a character in view). The latter's method meant that you couldn't just click on your destination if it was on the other side of the map like in BG2 but keep clicking ahead of their movement or if you had your party split in two (warriors in the thick of it then a gap before reaching your mages) then you had problems setting up area of effect spells near the enemies near the other part of your party.

That would be awesome. As to the spell, yeah I would like to see that too in a CRPG. It's definitely doable in tabletop, GURPS has a spell called Hush that silences Mages so they can't cast spells and no one under it's effects can talk but at the same time they gain bonuses to stealth for having all noise from them removed and automatically win against hearing challenges (there's then a more advanced spell that lets the caster speak and cast at will while under those same effects). There's also an area of effec Silence spell that removes all sound from an area which means that the mage can silence a room and have the party then pile in and slaughter everyone in a really messy and loud way without the guys in the next room hearing a thing, useful for a frontal approach that still requires some subtlety.

I hate the MMO aggro system. I'd prefer something like Tale suggests here: Also, I'd argue that you can counteract monsters going for weak characters without having to resort to aggro systems: spells such as Hold, magical impassable walls like a wall of fire that they have to go around, or knockdown spells. You also will then focus on environmental factors such as where you can bottleneck them, and if possible implement an actual 'shield wall' mechanic whereby warrriors can form a line (not necessarily right next to each other due to the numbers people are limited to, but close enough that they could attack anything going between them perhaps) that prevents monsters from passing through them (which would make having multiple warriors more desirable than usual too), that could be activated with a click resulting in the warriors automatically forming a line and moving as one character to make it easier to form and control. Hey, I love me my shield walls! :D

I want leveling to be slow enough that you end up in the 'competent' or 'middling' range at the end of the first game at the most, like in Baldur's Gate 1. This then means that you not only avoid the situation where everyone should be in awe of your awesomeness after just one campaign (I view each game as a campaign, with adventurers having three or four in their lifetimes) but also leave room for progress in subsequent games (they have expressed desire to be able to import your character into future games after all).

I'm with the others that hate forced dilemmas. Virmire is in my mind an example of that: oh let's contrive a situation where you have to choose which companion to save! Pretty much boiled down to "Do you want to bang one of them?" as to which you saved.

Yeah, sorry metiman, I loved your post in one of the romance threads with the 'alternative' romance approach utilizing the subdue mechanics, but I disagree with your post here. I understand your concern and agree with you on many points but the division between 'Codexians' and 'Biowarians' is not representative of most people I feel and are too extreme, but we are both entitled to our opinons unfortunately as I haven't finished the construction of 'The Device'... I am not a Codexian but if PE ends up like either of the Dragon Age games then I will cut your balls off! Yes, yours, I am making you personally responsible now, just you!

But then all you'll be doing is arguing the semantics of what is a god then. Most people nowadays think of 'gods' as omniscient and all-powerful as that is what is taught by the current mainstream faiths, but take a look at the Greek gods: not only were they not omniscient, they barely had any more clue than mortals, were petty-minded (and portrayed as such), horny, nasty, obsessive, backstabby, murderous, incestuous and very, very fallible, yet they were still the gods of that religion. People can argue whether the gods in PE are worthy of being worshipped but they cannot deny that the object of their worship exists if it's right there teabagging someone. In PE, I assume that people don't worship a god because they believe it exists but because they agree with it's manifesto and pledges. As to godslayers, I'm with others that doing a Highlander would probably be bad. What you could have as a godslayer faction is some sort of 'Buddhist style' order that believes that one day mortals will ascend to the level of gods and throw down the current ones but have it as a long-term goal that exists outside the scope of the timeframe of the game: they believe it's a process of purification that takes several incarnations to achieve for instance, requires the number of mortals to achieve ascension to be high before the gods can be overthrown (so they have a reason to try and convert others, to build the mortal army) and that they are opposed to the gods because they believe that they are trying to distract mortals from achieving their true purpose. Therefore it becomes more of a philosophy than an actual mission goal, and gives a specific reason why they may be opposed to the gods.

Wouldn't you come up with a concept of a world first and then select the rules that fit with the themes? I find that I would end up coming up with the same worlds if I did the rules first. Magic systems are easy to justify when they are not given internal consistency, but if you want it to actually fit in with the world and feel like a part of it rather than some other force then it needs to be built in with the themes I think. Ever play Mage: The Ascension? A Vancian would not have worked for that game. Likewise, Call of Cthulhu would not work with a Vancian system, the spells would need to avoid the stereotypical D&D spells and therefore the role of magic in the system changes and you also need to include sanity and the like. There are many different magic systems out there that have very different flavours, some good some bad but I wouldn't expect the good ones to work in all systems. They've spoken a lot about souls in interviews and how they are going to be used for powers and the like. I would expect them to therefore build the magic system around this concept since it seems to be where they are going with it.

I tried not to use the rest feature but that was something me as a player did to restrict myself, not something the rules did, and so for the purposes of comparing systems I would not take it into account. The rules allowed me to do so and in fact forced me to do so in order to get the right spells when I realised I didn't have the right selection for a specific battle. A restricted mana pool would probably have done a better job as it could be set to a size that seriously limits the number of spells cast per battle. If someone resorts to using fireball in every battle then they would probably have just memorised a whole bunch of fireballs in a Vancian system and done the same anyway, in that case I'd say it's more an issue with the spells and their effectiveness.

Its weird how common this concern is voiced. Not only is the setting new, but its being developed especially for a CRPG series. The believability of a setting depends on it's internal consistency. If something doesn't fit with the way the rest of the setting has been set out then it will stick out like a sore thumb to me. It's precisely because they are building it from scratch that I would like to see them take the opportunity to build the best world they can, and as it's being built especially for cRPG I see that as more reason for them to try something new rather than go with the Vancian model. With regards to setting-building, you're preaching to the choir - though I'd like to point out its not hard at all to fit a magic system in a world's workings. As for the part of ditching the Vancian system, I disagree wholeheartedly. To me, the rules should be built around the lore, I find that not all magic systems work well in all settings and I tend to pick up on the dissonance when a magic system has been blagged into a setting. I don't see why you wouldn't want to see a new system, the Vancian system is not perfect and trying out alternate systems would be good.

Regenerating mana pools is the major part of the problem. Essentially, if you always have all resources at disposal, you're still spamming magic. Not only magic may be nerfed for the game's good (to be in line with those who don't rely on it), but the strategic concerns (saving spells, etcetera) are no more. He says for it not to regenerate during combat. It restoring after battle is no different to how people would just rest their parties after every battle and as long as the mana pools are kept to a reasonable size and no mana potions it will have the same effect.

Yeah, I'd even go as far as to say I wouldn't want trash mobs at all: everyone should have a point. Not to say that each guy I kill should have a backstory, family and social life (though it would be funny to do a Austin Powers sequence of showing the orc family getting notification of the death of the father orc at your hands and saying "No one ever thinks of the family of an orc..."), but I don't want monsters just seemingly being in a room for no reason.

Its weird how common this concern is voiced. Not only is the setting new, but its being developed especially for a CRPG series. The believability of a setting depends on it's internal consistency. If something doesn't fit with the way the rest of the setting has been set out then it will stick out like a sore thumb to me. It's precisely because they are building it from scratch that I would like to see them take the opportunity to build the best world they can, and as it's being built especially for cRPG I see that as more reason for them to try something new rather than go with the Vancian model. Something that takes into account the difference of playing on a PC as opposed to around a table.

I like the idea of casting times, that way you can then be interrupted from casting a spell, and I always liked that 'spellcasting' animation in the IE games.